{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Anat of Arg Worksheet II

3 it concludes that there must be a first cause god

Info iconThis preview shows page 5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
[3] It concludes that there must be a first cause, God, because there cannot be an infinitely long history of prior causes of our effects. And [4] it claims it is not possible for causes to go to infinity, because the first cause is the cause of the rest in the order of effects leading to the present. But, of course, [5] that there is a first cause is the very issue the argument is trying to prove. 45. [1] The state interest in potential human life is likewise extant throughout pregnancy. [2] In Roe , the Court held that although the State had an important and legitimate interest in protecting potential life, that interest could not become compelling until the point at which the fetus was viable. The difficulty with this analysis is clear: [3] potential life is no less potential in the first weeks of pregnancy than it is at viability or afterward. [4] At any stage in pregnancy, there is the potential for human life. [5] Although the Court refused to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” the Court chose the point of viability--when the fetus is capable of life independent of its mother--to permit the complete proscription of abortion. [6] The choice of viability as the point at which the state interest in potential life becomes compelling is no less arbitrary than choosing any point before viability or any point afterward. Accordingly, I believe that [7] the State’s interest in protecting potential human life exists throughout the pregnancy .... Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Dissenting Opinion in Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health 46. [1] The state interest in potential human life is likewise extant BEFORE pregnancy. [2] In Roe , the Court held that although the State had an important and legitimate interest in protecting potential life, that interest could not become compelling until the point at which the fetus was viable. The difficulty with this analysis is clear: [3] potential life is no less potential in the moments before pregnancy than it is at viability or afterward. [4] Even before the pregnancy, viz., with the sperm and the egg, there is the potential for human life. [5] Although the Court refused to “resolve the difficult question of when life begins,” the Court chose the point of viability--when the fetus is capable of life independent of its mother--to permit the complete proscription of abortion. [6] The choice of viability as the point at which the state interest in potential life becomes compelling is no less arbitrary than choosing any point before viability or any point afterward. Accordingly, I believe that [7] the State’s interest in protecting potential human life exists even before pregnancy. (Where O’Connor’s argument actually leads ;-) 5
Background image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}